Why do you still support Bush?

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Phuck the "opposing party"...and phuck the "no viable alternative" silliness...

...anyone still supporting the moron, George Bush, has no self-respect...

I remember (from the Abuzz days) after the 2000 election you admitted to an irrational hatred for GWB.

He's a fukin' moron...and his administration is turning our country and the world into a piece of shyt.

Nothing irrational about hating the guy...or what he is doing.

Quote:

That hatred seems to be eating you alive, Frank.

Not me, Whodda. I'm one of the happiest, most content people on the planet. I love life...and live it to its fullest.

Quote:

At the least, it's certainly sapped your vocabulary.

My vocabulary was exceptional in grammar school...through high school...through my under grad work...and in grad school.

It was exceptional during my days at Abuzz...and it is exceptional now, here in A2K.

Ya gotta do better than that, Whodda. Defending the moron in chief...(and thinking up rationalizations for why you are sticking with him)... is sapping your imagination.

0 Replies

Whoodathunk- I must admit that I admire the left wing for its "presentation of evidence." They call names and make statements but offer no proof.

I am very much afraid that I must regretfully disagree with Mr. Frank Apisa's comment that he has an "exceptional vocabulary." If he cannot find a term more descriptive than, as he put it, "moron in chief", Mr. Apisa cannot claim to have a larger vocabulary than the semantically challenged who appear to be all from the left.

Mr.Apisa writes of his graduate school background. I am sure that he has an excellent one, and because of it, not to be grouped with the usual "morons", as he puts it.

I do not know if Mr. Apisa is aware that President Bush graduated from Yale University( back in the days when it was not common for half the class in such a University to gain grades of A) and from the most prestigious Harvard Business School.

Despite the claims of the left wing, there is no solid evidence to show that Harvard accepted President Bush because of influence. If that were so, the massive influence and wealth of the Kennedy patriarch would have been sufficient to persuade the Harvard Administration not to expel the esteemed moral conscience of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, for cheating on a Spanish test.

I am also certain that the man who Frank Apisa describes as "moron in chief" had a SAT verbal score about 50 or 60 points higher than the former Presidential Candidate and Rhodes scholar, former Senator Bill Bradley.

I respectfully suggest that Mr. Apisa do some research on the points I have outlined above. He may discover, in light of the evidence, that he is mistaken in his statement.

0 Replies

Mr. Candidone unfortunately refers to the "mass slaughter of innocent civilians for entertainment"

Inasmuch as the case has not been tried yet( I do believe that there is an investigation being made) it might be a trifle premature for such a judgment to be made.

Indeed, as Mr. Mystetyman succinctly points out--only blind partisans would charge anyone of "supporting the murder of innocent civilians".

The most perplexing section of Mr. Candidone' statement is the final phrase--"for entertainment". Perhaps he placed that phrase to create an effect but he may not realize that it completely destroys the argument he is attempting to make.

I offer a possible explanation--It may be that Mr.Candidone was thinking of the Islamo-fascists who set off bombs in market squares and murder scores each day. But even if he was thinking of those people, he certainly could not append the qualifier "for entertainment" to his statement and make it believable.

I respectfully suggest that Mr. Candidone review his statement--he may want to qualify it!

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Whooda,

I resent your using the term 'bitch' in that tone of voice. Anf for someone who feels that he is wasting his time, you sure posted a great many of 'and here is another one' posts just above.

Susan: "Bitch?" Copyright infringement? Would you prefer "piss & moan?"

My great many posts just above are the closest I'll come to getting sucked in to Candidone's transparent goads.

And, yes ... time spent here is a total waste.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Phuck the "opposing party"...and phuck the "no viable alternative" silliness...

...anyone still supporting the moron, George Bush, has no self-respect...

I remember (from the Abuzz days) after the 2000 election you admitted to an irrational hatred for GWB.

He's a fukin' moron...and his administration is turning our country and the world into a piece of shyt.

Nothing irrational about hating the guy...or what he is doing.

Sorry, Frank. I should have included the quotes around "irrational" as that was your own choice of words at the time, a choice that has stuck with me whenever I see your GWB tirades.

As for your sparkling vocabulary ... I just can't agree with you based on the evidence you offer. Perhaps a thesaurus might provide inspiration beyond your creative spellings of vulgarities? How about "copulatin' ignoramus turning the world into feces" for starters? At least a little variety would be refreshing for your next irrational rant.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Whoodathunk- I must admit that I admire the left wing for its "presentation of evidence." They call names and make statements but offer no proof.

I am very much afraid that I must regretfully disagree with Mr. Frank Apisa's comment that he has an "exceptional vocabulary." If he cannot find a term more descriptive than, as he put it, "moron in chief", Mr. Apisa cannot claim to have a larger vocabulary than the semantically challenged who appear to be all from the left.

Mr.Apisa writes of his graduate school background. I am sure that he has an excellent one, and because of it, not to be grouped with the usual "morons", as he puts it.

I do not know if Mr. Apisa is aware that President Bush graduated from Yale University( back in the days when it was not common for half the class in such a University to gain grades of A) and from the most prestigious Harvard Business School.

Despite the claims of the left wing, there is no solid evidence to show that Harvard accepted President Bush because of influence. If that were so, the massive influence and wealth of the Kennedy patriarch would have been sufficient to persuade the Harvard Administration not to expel the esteemed moral conscience of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, for cheating on a Spanish test.

I am also certain that the man who Frank Apisa describes as "moron in chief" had a SAT verbal score about 50 or 60 points higher than the former Presidential Candidate and Rhodes scholar, former Senator Bill Bradley.

I respectfully suggest that Mr. Apisa do some research on the points I have outlined above. He may discover, in light of the evidence, that he is mistaken in his statement.

Bernard...you sound like a prig and a fruit. Loosen your collar...have a BM...whatever it takes to stop that pretentious nonsense you are trying to sell as class.

George Bush is a fukin' moron...and I wouldn't trust any intelligence scores that show him to be more than that. (You'd be amazed at what money can buy in this country!)

As for my abilities with the English language...I have a track record of getting essays accepted for publication by newspapers and magazines across the United States and, in fact, over in Europe.

I had a letter published in the New York Times that was Op ed sized...probably one of the longest they've ever published. Newsweek magazine liked one of my essays enough to present it as a full-page MY TURN.

And...if you can open that small brain of yours enough to consider this...

...I am not a member of "the left" as you seem so intent on judging me to be. One does not have to be part of what you pathetic American conservatives consider "the left" to see this disgusting, incompetent, moronic individual for what he is.

I am about to leave to have my morning round of golf...so I'll have to suspend for now.

I'm sure we'll talk more...at least until you finally realize that you are way out of your league here in debate with me...and pretend to be unwilling to go further using one of the lame excuses loser American conservatives come up with in these instances.

You have a good day, Bernard...doing whatever people like you do for enjoyment.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Sorry, Frank. I should have included the quotes around "irrational" as that was your own choice of words at the time, a choice that has stuck with me whenever I see your GWB tirades.

As for your sparkling vocabulary ... I just can't agree with you based on the evidence you offer. Perhaps a thesaurus might provide inspiration beyond your creative spellings of vulgarities? How about "copulatin' ignoramus turning the world into feces" for starters? At least a little variety would be refreshing for your next irrational rant.

Yeah...my first grade teacher mentioned that my rather colorful language (already in place back then) was an indication of a small vocabulary. But I was always at the head of the class in every vocabulary test she ever gave.

Second grade teacher....same thing.

And it continued on throughout my schooling.

And now you are making the same silly...unintelligent...illogical argument.

George Bush is a fukin' moron...and an embarrassment to our country.

The only people not noticing that are the kneejerk American conservatives who apparently would lick his ass clean if he decided he no longer wanted to use toilet paper.

American conservatism...the absolute low point in political philosophy.

Without the inclusion and aid of the scum of the earth...it wouldn't even make a reasonable minor movement.

0 Replies

Mr. Apisa- I will be happy to interact with your obviously great talents in the future.

However,I am sure that I would be remiss if I did not inform you that I am also a scholar. I don't know the field in which you received your degree but I can tell you that I have four advanced degrees- Three Masters' Degrees and one Certificate of Advanced Studies which I earned at the University of Chicago after I had finished all my courses and my prelims and language exams but, had not, unfortunately, completed my dissertation for the PhD.

I have also written a little. I published a book last year and was the chief columnist for the University Newspaper quite a few years ago.

You still have a regrettable lack of polish in your writing. Anyone who can not create an insult that does not rise about "fuking moron" is, in my opinion, almost totally bereft of the kind of imagination that it takes to write clearly and persuasively.

I usually do not like to parade my accomplishments on these threads, but your so-called "accomplishments "do not intimidate at all. It makes one wonder, after reading your rather coarse presentation, whether there is indeed any truth in your claims.

As for your comments with regard to "What money can buy in this country"( and since you are so talented) would you please explain, in some detail, how it was that the man whose father had a ton of money and a load of influence, especially on the East Coast, was unable to get his parent to exercise the influence or use the "money" you think can buy anything, to get his cheating son back into Harvard after he was expelled?

I am sure you will not be able to explain that.

And, would you explain just exactly how George W. Bush was able to get a degree from the prestigious Harvard School of Business?

I have heard from other people who know nothing about higher education that the Professors were probably paid off or that some people did President Bush's work for him.

Only people who have never been on campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts and know NOTHING about Harvard and how strictly their reputation is guarded would make ridiculous comments about "Payoff"

Of course, the fact that President Bush's SAT verbal score has been published and shown to be about 60 points higher than that of Senator Bradley(Rhodes Scholar) means nothing to you since you would probably say that the publications which revealed those scores were "Paid off"

I am astonished that someone with a "graduate degree" would descend to the depths of calling someone, as you called me, a "prig and a fruit". I would never do such a thing.

First of all, it is contrary to the TOS. You do know what that is, of course.

Secondly, it reveals a mentality which cannot bring evidence to bear but rather seeks to bully. I assure you, sir, that I cannot be bullied. Not since I am probably six inches taller than you are and outweigh you by at least 50 pounds. Before you ask, my waist size is 40.

Now, why don't you try to act like a gentleman and discuss things in a mannerly way?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Candidone,
You said...

Quote:
I admire the pro-life crowd who sees no inconsistencies in supporting both abortion and the invasion of a sovereign nation and the mass slaughter of innocent civilians for entertainment (Haditha).

Are you really so blindly partisan that you think ANYONE supported the murder of innocent civilians?
If you do think that,then you are even more dense and hateful of Bush and conservatives then I thought you were.

No need to name call MM.
I was speaking generally of the US led invasion of Iraq specifically and dropped Haditha as an example of one of the recorded and recent atrocities which has occurred in Iraq.
Supporting the war in Iraq, after all that has been revealed of it since 2003 is inconsistent with the contention that life has intrinsic value.
Even you're not so naive to think that there has not been and continues to be no worthless killing in Iraq.

I don't see where in my response I expressed hatred for conservatives. I did say that I respected the opinions of the pro-life crowd.
Is that what we call hate these days?

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
I admire the pro-life crowd who sees no inconsistencies in supporting both abortion and the invasion of a sovereign nation and the mass slaughter of innocent civilians for entertainment (Haditha).
I respect your position on abortion as much as I do the pro-choice individual.
I just wish there was some consistency. Life is either inherently valuable, or it is not.

This detour was predictable and not worth further comment.

Try harder.

No, the predictibility lies in the hypocritical theses of neo-conservative doctrine:
Pro-life vis a vis abortion
Pro-war
Pro-gun
Pro-death penalty
Anti-Euthanasia

Although I do not ascribe support of these issues to you, these are the inherent contradictions in the typical conservative position. Some of which have emerged in your post.
You simply can't argue rationally that life has intrinsic value (re:abortion and euthanasia) yet maintain this set of values.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
[Care to provide me with a link that supports this contention?
...and qualify what "highest numbers" means to you.
Is it "higher than his job approval rating", or is it "high as in acceptable by any ruberic used for assessment", or is it "high enough that it is unquestionably supported by the majority of Americans"?

You're an intellectual and certainly capable of a Google search. Find it yourself. As for your other obfuscations ... what the hell are you really talking about anyway?

I did not make an unsubstantiated statement that I tried to pass off as fact.
Until you substantiate the claim that "despite the mess in Iraq, Bush still gets his highest numbers for national security"....it has no value.

My "other obfuscations" were requests for the qualification of what "highest numbers for national security" actually meant to either you or America.
In support of your claim, does "highest numbers" mean:
1. higher than his job approval rating
2. high as in acceptable by any ruberic used for assessment (normally regarded as ~65%)
3. high enough that it is unquestionably supported by the majority of Americans

I can't be botherd to google or validate something you try to pass off as fact.

0 Replies

double post

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
That's as hilarious as Brandon claiming that he supports Bush because of his stance on tort reform.
Clearly a hot issue here on A2K.

Please see my earlier comments re your understanding of "intellectual discussion" ... high fives, backslapping, eyerolling, etc. That was your sole reason for posting this thread, Candidone. Have the decency to admit it and stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of intellectualism.

These liberal bitch sessions are a dime a dozen anymore & this one's hardly worth a nickel.

Well you seem to have brought a whole roll of coins to this casino.
I actually posted it with the intent of understanding the reasons behind continued support of this administration.
Speaking of the mantle of intellectualism, IMO, Asherman is the only worthy contributor to this thread.
Your puerile contributions have only diminished the otherwise intellectual debates I have come to expect from you.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Candidone unfortunately refers to the "mass slaughter of innocent civilians for entertainment"

Inasmuch as the case has not been tried yet( I do believe that there is an investigation being made) it might be a trifle premature for such a judgment to be made.

Perhaps "for entertainment" was an unfair statement to have been made this early, you are correct.
I made the comment based on news emerging from the Haditha massacres, some of the , and from the not-so-recent incidences at Abu Ghraib.

BernardR wrote:

Indeed, as Mr. Mystetyman succinctly points out--only blind partisans would charge anyone of "supporting the murder of innocent civilians".

No, not just the blind partisan would make this claim.
The naivity of the right lies in the belief that the superiority of the technology used by the American army is in fact, "smart" and does not, in fact, target civilians, unintentionally or otherwise.
That there was an intentional and horrific massacre of innocent civilians at Haditha is beside the point.
Supporting the war entails also supporting whatever "collateral damage" gets in the way of the so-called "smart bombs".
Murdering innocent civilians doesn't just happen in face to face combat, it also occurs when a bomb is launched into a city from afar.

BernardR wrote:

I offer a possible explanation--It may be that Mr.Candidone was thinking of the Islamo-fascists who set off bombs in market squares and murder scores each day. But even if he was thinking of those people, he certainly could not append the qualifier "for entertainment" to his statement and make it believable.

Abu Ghraib was entertainment. IMO, the Haditha massacre was done "because we can". But that is my opinion.
The insurgents too have an agenda, and it's yet unknown what that is. Many contend that they are opposing a foreign occupying force and they too don't mind the collateral damages that get in the way of their human bombs.
I do not condone what the insurgents are doing any more than I do what the American forces are doing.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Apisa- I will be happy to interact with your obviously great talents in the future.

However,I am sure that I would be remiss if I did not inform you that I am also a scholar. I don't know the field in which you received your degree but I can tell you that I have four advanced degrees- Three Masters' Degrees and one Certificate of Advanced Studies which I earned at the University of Chicago after I had finished all my courses and my prelims and language exams but, had not, unfortunately, completed my dissertation for the PhD.

I have also written a little. I published a book last year and was the chief columnist for the University Newspaper quite a few years ago.

You still have a regrettable lack of polish in your writing. Anyone who can not create an insult that does not rise about "fuking moron" is, in my opinion, almost totally bereft of the kind of imagination that it takes to write clearly and persuasively.

I have no trouble writing clearly and persuasively...and if your priggishness is too great for you to recognize that...be advised that the problem is with you and your narrow mindedness...and not with me or my writing talents.

Quote:

I usually do not like to parade my accomplishments on these threads, but your so-called "accomplishments "do not intimidate at all. It makes one wonder, after reading your rather coarse presentation, whether there is indeed any truth in your claims.

My comments regarding my accomplishments were not made to intimidate...but rather were a response to your fruity little way of insulting others. Try growing a set of balls...and make your insults like a man rather than a pansy.

And as for whether or not there is truth in my claims...I have the balls to post under my own name...not some fruity little disguised name like you...so you can go onto the Internet and check if you choose.

Quote:

As for your comments with regard to "What money can buy in this country"( and since you are so talented) would you please explain, in some detail, how it was that the man whose father had a ton of money and a load of influence, especially on the East Coast, was unable to get his parent to exercise the influence or use the "money" you think can buy anything, to get his cheating son back into Harvard after he was expelled?

No need to do so. Money can buy plenty...but it cannot buy everything.

George Bush is a fukin' moron...and anyone who cannot see that simply is not looking. He is an embarrassment to our country.

Quote:

I am sure you will not be able to explain that.

I am even surer that I will not bother to try.

Quote:

And, would you explain just exactly how George W. Bush was able to get a degree from the prestigious Harvard School of Business?

I have heard from other people who know nothing about higher education that the Professors were probably paid off or that some people did President Bush's work for him.

Only people who have never been on campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts and know NOTHING about Harvard and how strictly their reputation is guarded would make ridiculous comments about "Payoff"

Right!!!!

In your guarded world...such a thing is impossible.

Well...no one ever said a requirement for being an American conservative is to have a functioning brain!

Quote:

Of course, the fact that President Bush's SAT verbal score has been published and shown to be about 60 points higher than that of Senator Bradley(Rhodes Scholar) means nothing to you since you would probably say that the publications which revealed those scores were "Paid off"

Anyone who has heard Bill Bradley speak off the cuff...and also has heard the moron in chief "speak" off the cuff...realizes that the so-called "60 point higher" is a fraud of some sort. George Bush does not speak nearly as well as most candidates for high school offices. He is a fukin' moron.

Quote:

I am astonished that someone with a "graduate degree" would descend to the depths of calling someone, as you called me, a "prig and a fruit". I would never do such a thing.

Yeah...most fruity prigs wouldn't.

Quote:

First of all, it is contrary to the TOS. You do know what that is, of course.

Secondly, it reveals a mentality which cannot bring evidence to bear but rather seeks to bully. I assure you, sir, that I cannot be bullied. Not since I am probably six inches taller than you are and outweigh you by at least 50 pounds. Before you ask, my waist size is 40.

So you are a large, probably fat fruity prig.

What is your point?

Quote:

Now, why don't you try to act like a gentleman and discuss things in a mannerly way?

Sure. Be delighted, Mr. R. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Most of that is quite low, Frank, even by your new sub-standards. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Anyone who has heard Bill Bradley speak off the cuff...and also has heard the moron in chief "speak" off the cuff...realizes that the so-called "60 point higher" is a fraud of some sort. George Bush does not speak nearly as well as most candidates for high school offices. He is a fukin' moron.

What's embarrassing is there are leaders of foreign countries that can speak better english than our president. The King of Jordan for one.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Most of that is quite low, Frank, even by your new sub-standards.

Not really....but I can understand your need to characterize it as such. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Frank wrote:
Anyone who has heard Bill Bradley speak off the cuff...and also has heard the moron in chief "speak" off the cuff...realizes that the so-called "60 point higher" is a fraud of some sort. George Bush does not speak nearly as well as most candidates for high school offices. He is a fukin' moron.

What's embarrassing is there are leaders of foreign countries that can speak better english than our president. The King of Jordan for one.

What's even more embarrassing is that there are grammar school students in our country who can speak the language with more ability than this moron.

How did we ever come to this?

Why do you still support Bush?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know